Call of Duty: Black Ops, on PC, in 3D. Our first few hours

We're working hard on the Call of Duty: Black Ops review, using a 3D loaner …

Right now we're in the process of playing through Call of Duty: Black Ops on the PC in order to write a full review, and we have some very special hardware to play it on. I'm testing out the Digital Storm Black|Ops Assassin with a 3D monitor, and I'm listening to all the gunshots and explosions through my ear cans. If you want to talk about an easy way to make sure you're focused completely on the game, this is it.

I feel like I have to strap in: the 3D glasses go on top of my normal glasses, and then the headphones go over that. Activision made a big deal of the game's availability in 3D, for both consoles and the PC, and the depth effect is amazing. The game was given an "excellent" rating for 3D support in NVIDIA's 3DVision rating system, and so far I've been playing for around two hours with no headaches.

It's very easy to focus on the game playing this way, as almost all other stimuli are blocked off. The 3D gives the game a lot of extra kick, and the subtle details really bring something to the experience. When you bring up the scope of your rifle you can tell the scope has its own depth, as does the area of the screen you're zoomed in on. The only downside is the dimness. Even with the brightness cranked up, the image looks dark, just like 3D in the movie theater.

It's also important to point out that I'm playing on a PC that's about as top of the line as you can get right now, making it simple to jack up all the bells and whistles on top of turning 3D on; that's something that older systems may struggle with, and our current consoles are going to have to make some graphical concessions to bring these effects to your TV. This is my first time playing a PC game in 3D for more than a few minutes, and I can definitely see the appeal, especially with this level of power under the hood.

Am I ready to get out my wallet? Probably not, as many of the games I want to play in 3D simply don't work as well as the new Call of Duty. If 3D support is this strong with future titles, however, it will become much more tempting. Expect our full review of the game, as well as a look at how this system handles the task of powering three monitors while outputting in 3D, in the near future.

As for the game, the single-player is very enjoyable so far, although we have yet to play online. More soon.

68 Reader Comments

Glasses over glasses is reason #2 why I'm not interested in the current 3D push. Consistently disappointing depth effects in my experience so far was reason #1. I stopped even trying them out about a year and a half ago. I'm content to wait for holographs.

I must say, I wasn't planning on getting black-ops, but playing it in 3d appeals to me. It's time for me to upgrade my graphics card and monitor, so I may end up spending a little bit more than I planned on if other games in the future have some solid 3d capabilities.

Left 4 Dead 2 works well in 3d, but I really can't say it adds much to the game. I even forget the 3D effect is there after a while.

If you forget it's there after a while, and you have to wear stupid glasses that make it dim and hurt your eyes, is it really worth it? For me, it's really the whole "forgetting it's there" thing. The novelty wears off quickly, but only after NVidia has your $150.

Exactly which hardware is required to play in 3D? Obviously some sort of glasses system and a video card that supports 3d, but do you need certain monitors? Which cards support it? What sort of price are we looking at here?

Not only would wearing glasses over glasses suck for me, wearing headphones over glasses sucks just as much.

I wear office glasses at work (progressives) to reduce eye strain at the computer and when I wear my headphones for music the sides of my head hurt after awhile since they are pressing the arms into my head. I would hate to have that with two pair of glasses.

I want someone to incorporate some of that Canon EOS tech to shine IR off my retina and calculate what I an focusing on, then use that information create the stereoscopic images.

That would be awesome.

Microsoft has shown off TVs that do this. I'm damn sure their next steps are to integrate this into the next-gen Kinekt. Imagine that breakout-style game, but where the balls really look like they're coming at you.

When you bring up the scope of your rifle you can tell the scope has its own depth, as does the area of the screen you're zoomed in on

In those situations the realistic (3D is all about realism, amirite?) thing to do would be to completely disable all 3D effects. Iron sights, reflex sights and scopes of various magnifications and FOVs are used by closing one eye and allowing the other eye to line up a target with the aiming visual cue overlayed over it (whether that's a metal post, illuminated, parallax-corrected dot or simple printed markings).

Left 4 Dead 2 works well in 3d, but I really can't say it adds much to the game. I even forget the 3D effect is there after a while.

If you forget it's there after a while, and you have to wear stupid glasses that make it dim and hurt your eyes, is it really worth it? For me, it's really the whole "forgetting it's there" thing. The novelty wears off quickly, but only after NVidia has your $150.

Actually, I'd say that an effect which completely fades into the background is the best kind - the effect shouldn't be the focus, the game should be; the effect should serve the purpose of building the game world. Positional sound is a good example - I don't want to be constantly aware of the cool factor of effects sounding like they're happening around me in space, I want it to just be. I want to be able to just take it for granted.

I haven't played with 3D gaming, so I can't say whether L4D2 is a good use of it, and certainly not if it's worthwhile in CoD:BO, but I actually find the idea that it becomes "invisible" to you a point in its favor.

Not only would wearing glasses over glasses suck for me, wearing headphones over glasses sucks just as much.

I wear office glasses at work (progressives) to reduce eye strain at the computer and when I wear my headphones for music the sides of my head hurt after awhile since they are pressing the arms into my head. I would hate to have that with two pair of glasses.

That's a problem with the headphones. A good set of headphones is light on the ears, almost to the point you forget you're wearing them. I know when I first got a set of "real" headphones, I ended up nearly breaking them from all the times I stood up and walked away from the computer and forgetting to take them off my head.

Happysin, you're bringing up how choice is so great on a site that has some of the most epic troll wars between the Mac and Windows crowds? We're opinionated. Get over it.

Except they're bitching about a setting. It's like I came in here and said "fuck the devs for supporting 1024x768! Who gives a rat's ass about that resolution?" It's stupid in the extreme.

It seems to me that most complainers are talking about 3D that requires the glasses, not the concept of 3D itself. I myself don't mind the 3D gimmick so much as the fact that the glasses become somewhat unusable with my prescription glasses.

I'd say we're just wishing forward for the day that we'll eventually have 3D without needing to wear an extra item.

If we have to wear glasses, why stop at simple 3D? Why can't we have the dual display built into the glasses and then use something like Kinect to head/body track and a gun/movement controller for the trigger and walking?????

Sorry to break it too you but like motion controls it is here to stay especially since content conversion (especially generated like games) iis pretty cheap and despite what they want to charge it cheap to add to TVs too.

This sounds like it might be fun to try. Not going to drop the cash on it, but it's nice to know it is coming along.

And articles like this that bring it up, even if they do attract a lot of "OMG 3D" responses, keep the topic going so that one day there might be 3D that the vast majority of gamers will see as a logical step in the experience.

QUOTE: Ben Kuchera wrote: " Expect our full review of the game, as well as a look at how this system handles the task of powering three monitors while outputting in 3D, in the near future."....Hi Ben, Are you implying that you played on THREE monitors at the same time, each with a different angle/view? So if you're flying a chopper, are each of the three monitors is a different window of the cockpit (ie: left window, right window, and front windshield?)

Im not interested in gaming much anymore (left that behind with Battlefield 2), but if such a three-screen view was available on this game that alone would cause me to buy the hardware and the game!! When is the review coming out, and will it include all aspects of the hardware? Thanks

Sorry to break it too you but like motion controls it is here to stay especially since content conversion (especially generated like games) iis pretty cheap and despite what they want to charge it cheap to add to TVs too.

You know, shovelware might not be the knockdown argument in favor of the advance of 3D that you seem to think it is.

When you bring up the scope of your rifle you can tell the scope has its own depth, as does the area of the screen you're zoomed in on

In those situations the realistic (3D is all about realism, amirite?) thing to do would be to completely disable all 3D effects. Iron sights, reflex sights and scopes of various magnifications and FOVs are used by closing one eye and allowing the other eye to line up a target with the aiming visual cue overlayed over it (whether that's a metal post, illuminated, parallax-corrected dot or simple printed markings).

That might work ok at home, but in a combat situation I'm not so sure you'd find closing yourself from your surroundings such a great idea.

My main worry about all this 3D stuff is that it will be the next "multiplayer checkbox". It seems that many games today feature multiplayer just to have the checkbox on the feature list. But doing that takes time away from developing the core came, often when the multiplayer doesn't seem very necessary. I worry that making sure you have the 3D "wow" moments will come at the expense of real gameplay and content.

That said, I tend to get motion sick from games if I play to long (some are worse). I can't help but think that the setup pictured would only speed that problem up so that instead of being able to play for an hour or two, I'd only be able to play for a few minutes. I'd love to know if these glasses setups make that worse.

I have a 3D FPS setup in our lab for testing, when we were doing more 3D stuff... Basically, it requires a monitor that supports 120hz refresh, because the graphics card is going to oscillate between showing the left and right images at 60hz intervals. The glasses incorporate "LCD shutters", so that the Left and Right eyes are opaque/blocked at the right times. This is why the image appears darker, because you are cutting 50% of the light going through the glasses.